THE COMMISSIONER OF CROWN LANDS AT AKAROA.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 64, 27 March 1852, Page 3

THE COMMISSIONER OF CROWN LANDS AT AKAROA.

[Prom our Special Commissioner.] From all the enquiries I have been able to j make, the following are all the facts conuected with the recent proceedings by the Commissioner at this place. It appears that Mr. Watson bought a land-order issued by the Canterbury Associa- , tion, and selected a section of 50 acres of land at Piraki; that he gave notice to the squatters who were settled there in that bay Mr. Carew was coming to live there, and that they must remove or make an arrangement with him. A man named Hempelman, who owned one of the huts, refused to give up possession, and, upon the information of Mr. Dicken, the officer appointed by Government to lay informations tinder the Ordinance, was summoned to appear on the 9th October, before Mr. Guuland, J. P. Hempel- ■; man set up d defence that he held formerly Vt purchased the land from the natives, and called a squatter named Simpson to prove the contract. The Magistrate of course, could take no notice of a pretended claim where Hempieman could show neither any Crown grant nor any judgment of a commission in his favour. He, however, postponed judgment, referring to Government for the opinion of the law offices of the crown, as to the competency of a single Magistrate to adjudicate under the native Land Purchase Ordinance, Sess. vii. No. 19. On. the 7th Nov. the case was brought on before Mr. Gouland and Mr. Godley, who happened to be at Akaroa. Hempelman was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine' of £5 with costs, a fortnight being allowed for payment. The opinion of the Attorney-general was subsequently received that the case was within the jurisdiction of a single Magistrate. Just as the fortnight expired, Colonel Campbell wrote to the Magistrate warning him to stay proceedings, and taking the case into his own hands. The matter was then referred to the Government, together with Hempelman's protest on the grounds of his purchase from the natives, and of the Commissioner's interference. The reply was that his Excellency was pleased to rerait Hempelman's fine on the ground that his "jplaim had not been heard by a Commissioner. "*" Hempelman's claim was then referred by the Governor to Col. Campbell, (as Commissioner) and a day was appointed for hearing the case. % As far as I can learn, the real facts of the case are as follows :—Hempelman was the headsman at a whaling station at Piraki, and somewhere about 1837 or 1838, he purchased from some natives a tract of country of about 15 miles square, including Piraki, Akaroa, and all the surrounding country. You will find this claim mentioned in a schedule furnished to the Government by Captain Stanley, of H.M.S. " Britomart," who visited Akaroa in 1840, (Parlt. papers, 311, 11th May, 1841), where the " land is said to be bought from Bloody Jack ;" but in the same list there is a claim by " Capt. Roads" [Rhodes] for the same tract of country. With the remark "Captain Roads's title is signed by Tyroa." lam also told that there was a third claimant to the same block, —a man named Clayton, who also bought the same land of the natives ; but which of these purchases was made first I could not discover. At all events it is certain that the same land was sold to three different parties at three several times ; but this was not at all an uncommon occurrence in those days. It was in order to deal with such claims as these that an Ordinance was passed, in the year 1841, entitled the Land Claims' Ordinance, sesson I, No. 2, by which it was enacted that all claims to land under pretended purchases from the natives were to be sent to the Government, and to be referred to Commissioners appointed for that purpose, within one /year after the passing of the Ordinance, that is -■-'before 9th June, 1842, and that all claims not! •^so referred should be absolutely null and void. 2»ow I am told by some persons that Clayton's claim for this block of land was investigated by Col. Godfrey, one of the Commissioners appointed under the Ordinance, and was disallowed ; and that Hempelman upon that occasion gave evidence that Clayton's claim was a good one—that Hempelman, after Clayton's claim had been disallowed, put in his own claim, and that Colonel Godfrey recollecting that he had given such evidence in Clayton's favor, immediately dismissed the case. I do not vouch for the truth of this story, I only tell it as I heard it from persons here. I also learn that Mr. Price of Ikaloa bought

the fisheries, land and buildings at Piraki, a long time ago, from Hempelman, and leased them again to him at the nominal rent of one shilling a year ; but the claim to the land having been laid before the lawyers at Wellington, and their opinion being that it was worth nothing, Price considered his agreement valueless. Should, however, Hempelman's claim he allowed, the property will become Price's. But there is a great doubt whether any of the natives who are said to have been parties to these sales had any property in the land. In 1840, Major Bunbury says in a letter to Governor Hobson. " This Chief (speaking of Tyroa) however can have no claim to the property at the port of Akaroa, which he has assumed the right to dispose of, beyond the circumstance of his having been one of the belligerent chiefs, leagued with the late Tenuaheranui against Rauperaha, when the latter destroyed the tribes and carried their chiefs into captivity." And this is equally true of Bloody Jack and the other natives, whose names are appended to the deeds, all of whom belong to the neighbourhood of Otago, and had no sort of right to dispose of Akaroa, where they were only sojourning for a short time. The maories now living in the neighbourhood unanimously deny Bloody Jack's right to sell the land at all. This is the nature of the claim which has received now three hearings in the Commissioner's Court. I find it very difficult to give anything like an account of the proceedings because they have been of so ludicrous and preposterous a nature, that, as a person who was present expressed it "a shorthand writer could not have taken them down." A correspondence was first read between Hempelman and Capt. Fitzroy's Secretary, through which it appears that when the business of the government was transferred from Sydney to New Zealand, Hempelman's claim had been mislaid, and thus had not been gazetted with the others. A correspondence was also read with Sir George Grey's government, in which this claim was referred to a commissioner when appointed. I cannot understand how the latter correspondence can have any bearing on the subject, as the Ordinance positively requires that all claims shall have been referred to a commissioner before June, 1842, when Sir George Grey was not in the Colony. If Hempelman's claim was not referred to a commissioner before that date, it is made absolutely null and void by the Ordinance. The first witness called was a whaler, named Joseph Millar, who had been one of Hempelman's boat's crew. He began by stating that two north island Maori boys at Piraki fishery were seized by the natives from the southward, who murdered one of them, and that Hempelman ransomed the other at the price of a whale boat. The Commissioner thought proper to dwell at some length upon the humanity and generosity of Hempelman, to the surprise of his hearers, who were not before aware that the moral character of a purchaser affected, the validity of his contracts. The other whalers are, I am told, disgusted at Hempelman's getting credit of this as they all subscribed towards the ransom. Millar then stated that Hempelman had given another large whale boat, valued at £200 v in trade" for the land, that the deed had been signed by Bloody Jack, as chief, the other Maoris present assenting in his heaving. It was not asked even whether Millar understood Maori at that time, from what I hear I doubt whether he did. The second witness was Simpson, a whaler, at the same station, who gave similar evidence ; and stated that he saw Hempelman speak to the Commandant on the subject of of his claim to the land. On the second day a Frenchman named Eteveneaux was examined, who stated nothing more than that he had been present when Hempelman spoke to the Commandant, and that Mr. Robinson was present* On the third sitting hardly any one attended. Every one appears to have been utterly disgusted at the conduct of the Commissioner, who was determined from the first to hear no evidence except that in favour of the claim. A correspondence was read between himself and the Rev. Mr. Aylmer, and the Court adjourned. So the case stands for the present: it is received as a matter of course that the claim is to be allowed. Apart from the general conduct of the commissioner, and the childish manner in which the examination was conducted, which, as I gather from every respectable person in Akaroa, was such as to turn the whole affair into a farce, there are some rumours floating about, the truth of which Government will have

to investigate. For instance, it is a fact that one man told Col. Campbell, that if Hempelman's claim interfered with his land, he could bring evidence which ' would put a stopper on it at once!' The Colonel has been meeting this man every day since, and has never called him as a witness. Not a single native witness has been examined, although the whole validity of the claim, depends on the right of the Maoris signing the deed to convey the land. Why were not the other claimants called and examined? Several of whom are within reach. Mr. Rhodes, for example—.Robinson Clough, who has a claim of the same kind over a part of the same land— Mrs. Wood, now at Akaroa, whose husband has another claim. All these were on the spot at the time, and could give evidence if called on to do so. Again, why was not Col. Godfrey's investigation into Clayton's claim, and subsequent dismissal of Hempelman's claim, before the commissioner ? Has the government placed Colonel Godfrey's papers at Colonel Campbell's disposal? (To be continued.)